Ime in busy pubs in the evening, as people get drunker social distancing goes out the window
Just wait unt unis go back, now with more students than ever !
Sorry I've not been concentrating, how did the UK death toll drop by 5000? Thats a lot of devine intervention.
anagallis_arvensis
MemberSorry I’ve not been concentrating, how did the UK death toll drop by 5000? Thats a lot of devine intervention.
If you died 28 days after testing positive for coronavirus, you now no longer count, even if you totally did die of coronavirus (because why would they retest you 3 weeks into dying of it?).
Supposedly this is more accurate than the previous system but that seems sketchy to me. Lots of apples and oranges comparisons though
Did anyone listen to David King on the independent SAGE report released this morning about the R rate being between 0,9 and 1.1 on LBC at 4pm with Eddie Mair.
To quote David King "yikes' & "hit the panic button "
Sorry I’ve not been concentrating, how did the UK death toll drop by 5000
They've combined Public Health England and Ofqual. They were worried about infection inflation so had the numbers moderated.
Well we will be back to normal lockdown from next Wednesday, specific wards in Blackburn and Pendle being locked down further, apparently rates in Rossendale have dropped enough to take us out, not quite sure how going from 2 cases a week to 2 cases a week counts as a drop. About time targeted lock down was applied, shame there's no credibility left anymore.
Are these lockdowns based on rates of infection or absolute numbers of positive cases?
So can anyone explain why....
1. The current death rate in the UK continues to drop despite the fact that most of the original restrictions were lifted weeks ago?
2. The death rate in Sweden is currently close to zero despite them not actually locking down at all?
Is there more immunity in the population than originally thought? Is the virus becoming less deadly?
Is there more immunity in the population than originally thought? Is the virus becoming less deadly?
No, and no. It’s about who’s giving it to whom. And restrictions are still in place in the UK and Sweden.
Rate per 100,000 people seem to be the key indicator.
1) infections now are mostly in younger groups , who have much, much lower death rate >90% of all deaths were in OAPs, they're still isolating
City centres in UK are still empty , schools closed, public transport unused etc
2) The Swedish lockdown was as strict as many other countries, just self imposed as much as government mandated & still activity well below normal
-conpare mobility of Stockholm Vs London
https://citymapper.com/cmi/stockholm
Mind boggling that Dido Harding has been given a promotion, considering how badly the service is underperforming
Not surprised at all. They need to discredit and dismantle PHE before the enquiry starts. That requires a lackey not a competent boss, so Dido fits the bill perfectly.
Pre-emptive strikes to remove the possibility of effective scrutiny is classic Dom.
They’ve combined Public Health England and Ofqual. They were worried about infection inflation so had the numbers moderated.
[rolleyes]
The figures were adjusted to bring in line to how every other part of the UK counts the deaths as well as other European countries, so its more comparing apples with apples now.
Based on the old counting method the UK could have ended up with millions of deaths, so when these dirty infected teenagers die from a coke overdose 6 months later they'd have been included in the figures.
Any idea when it will be implemented?
@ElShalimo apparently the councils and MPs are reviewing stuff now and could be authorised by next Thurs.
Based on the old counting method the UK could have ended up with millions of deaths, so when these dirty infected teenagers die from a coke overdose 6 months later they’d have been included in the figures.
The old counting method, which will include some unrelated deaths, was as imperfect as the new one, which is likely to exclude quite a few related ones. Are we expected to believe that 11% or so of deaths which happened within a relatively short period (months) of testing positive were due to completely unrelated reasons?
We are already aware that the damage caused by Covid is extensive and long lasting in many patients, even if the initial viral infection and its consequences do not kill. Just take a look at the 'Have You Had Covid' thread on here for some anecdotal evidence from generally pretty healthy people whose bodies have been knocked to shite for months afterwards. It it fairly obvious that the virus, and its sequelae, represent a threat to health for not just a few weeks, particularly to those who have underlying conditions which already place them at high risk of death.
The problem with excluding the fella who dropped dead of a heart attack/kidney failure etc 35 days after testing positive with Covid is that it is disguising this ongoing health burden, at a time when we don't fully understand it and need to shine a light on the many thousands of people who are not just vulnerable for the initial period, but will probably need close monitoring and additional intervention/support for a significant period.
I am yet to be convinced that the reasons for changing this are anything other than political ****ery.
The Govt haven't updated the official source of info since the 14th
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/north-west-of-england-local-restrictions-what-you-can-and-cannot-do
Larry, I didn't realise I needed to add sarcasm tags. I know why it was changed and makes sense when comparing us to other countries, lucky for the government the figure went down not up when we standardised our reporting method.
The Govt haven’t updated the official source of info since the 14th
I don’t know anyone who’s stuck to that, do you?
And I’d missed this bit…
If you’re visiting outdoor areas of cafes, restaurants or pubs, you should only meet in groups of up to 2 households, or up to 6 people from multiple households.
So, you can meet a mate and their family down the pub, as long as you stay outside. Didn’t know that.
This is the bit that niggles me most…
Can I travel outside of my area?
You should not travel outside of your area to meet people other than those in your support bubble, in their homes or gardens, or indoor public places.
You can still go on holiday outside of your area, but you can only do this with people you live with (or have formed a support bubble with).
So, you can’t visit family, but you can go on holiday. Well, what about people who stay with family for their holiday? And I’m not referencing Cummings there… I mean people who can only afford holidays without paying for accommodation.
The whole “spend money or stay isolated” approach isn’t sustainable.
@kelvin - I'm well aware of the current daft rules as I live in Calderdale. You can meet people in a beer garden in the lovely weather we always have....
My point was that these fectards can't even be arsed to update the webpage with the official guidance on the northern restrictions.
Probably another page for that somewhere else. There should be a daily briefing. No one has a clue what is going on. Our PM is too lazy though.
I can’t find anything. But then those restrictions that are published were written and put live a while after they were supposed to apply, IIRC.
The page I linked to is (or was) the official source
The Govt haven’t updated the official source of info since the 14th
well, the pm’s secretary has been on holiday in Scotland...
If local lockdowns are based on local authority areas are the details on the local authority website?
(Yes I'd expect something on the gov.uk page as well)
The old counting method, which will include some unrelated deaths, was as imperfect as the new one
There is no perfect way because its still so new.
At least we're now counting like everyone else for a more meaningful comparison.
ElShalimo, which end of Calderdale do live, west Halifax where there are large spikes in infection rates, or the rural parts where there isn't. I'd ignore the government nonsense and base my behaviour on the infection rates where I live, not on somewhere 20 miles away I have zero contact with. Maybe Rossendale could annex western Calderdale and liberate you?
Stainland (in the clouds), feel free to annexe us but I think Rochdale want us first to improve their stats
😉
My point about the Government is that they introduced these regulations/laws/****hattery so it is incumbent upon them to inform us, the great unwashed. The additional restrictions in Oldham etc are not on there yet.
I know, I know... it's all part of their shitty approach, deception, misdirection etc. It's the worst amateur magic show ever. (I worked on the bar at a working men's club in the 80s, I've sadly seen enough of these to earn the right to say that. 🤦).
Govt website now updated.... Only a full day after they announced the changes
Twunts
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/north-west-of-england-local-restrictions-what-you-can-and-cannot-do
<tinfoilhat> Is the interruption to the booking system for Covid19 tests in Scotland a deliberate spanner in the works from Westminster?</tinfoilhat>
It is a UK Government run website and booking system. Only Scottish Testing sites seemed unavailable. The visuals of Scots having to travel to Penrith to get a test must be pleasing to those in the UK Govt. who have been viewing Nicola Sturgeon's actions and approval ratings with concern, especially when contrasted with their own.
...and of course the only 2 that came close to us, were first wave countries while we had more opportunity to watch and prepare. I just keep thinking about what Italy would have given for that chance.
It's a very small graph, but the last 7 days in Scotland are suggesting that we're back near lockdown levels?
The data tables seem to confirm this.
'World Class' my arse!!
Government falls short of contact-tracing target for ninth week in row
The test and trace figures released earlier – with 75.5% of close contacts reached through the NHS system – represented the ninth week in a row where the government has fallen short of its 80% target.Dido Harding, the interim executive chair of the National Institute for Health Protection, said: “We will continue to build the service further to reach more and more people and to scale up our testing capacity by expanding our network of testing sites and investing in new technologies.”
From the Guardian Newsfeed.
Also from the Guardian:
Only 46% of the British population believe their country has done a good job handling coronavirus.
When will they admit it's a giant failure?
It’s a very small graph, but the last 7 days in Scotland are suggesting that we’re back near lockdown levels?
If you do a lot more testing, you'll find a lot more cases. How many folk were being tested at the start of lockdown?
(the 7 day average does seem to be moving back in the right direction for the moment)
A fair point on testing = you find more.
I still feel pretty positive about things overall, my main concern (mainly due to job) is that schools become a growing way of transmission.
‘World Class’ my arse!!
I think there is some National variance here. My son has been called three times to check he is staying at home for the full fortnight. Yes he could lie, yes he could bluster. But the system is active up here in Scotland it seems...
It’s a very small graph, but the last 7 days in Scotland are suggesting that we’re back near lockdown levels?
Aye, but not rising on a log scale, as they were before, that's the big difference.
Until the virus either mutates or we get some kind of vaccine, we'll have a baseline number of infections, that will be at the mercy of how we maintain controls.
For the UK overall less than 20% of home tests (which is now majority of testing) meet the 48hr turnaround target
no wonder they dropped the press conferences
Back from a week on holiday (in Norfolk).
Not a huge amount of social distancing and the county was rammed. Slight increase in excess mortality from historic baseline, which the ONS is stating might be due to the heatwave. The trend is one of flatten then turn over and the regions involved are the ones with excess cases, so we shall see. I'm guessing further increase next Tuesday, then Bank Holiday reporting dip.
For some interesting science on just how transmissible the virus is in a closed (cold) space, and data on whether there is some protection from infection by neutralising antibodies, this paper on transmission on a fishing vessel was put up on the preprint server. It was reported in the media already, but the source is a good read if you like that sort of thing. Over 80% became infected with a high proportion asymptomatic.
My mrs is a pregnant teacher (reception, so being covered in mucus is a given, and face masks are impossible) and is currently debating whether to return to school in September. I've done a bit of a lay persons dive into the data available, which I wrote up for her. I'm not a scientist but thought i'd share what I found in case it's helpful for anyone else.
The TLDR summary (i'm suggesting she does not go back to the front line teaching role on this basis):
- pregnant women who catch it end up in hospital more often and are more likely to have to go into ICU etc. Second and third trimester is worse time.
- it is rare for the baby to get it at birth if they're seperated immediately from the mother
- there is evidence for placental abnormalities if the mother has had it and these are associated with negative outcomes for the baby
- there is obviously no direct evidence for covid 19 as yet, but viral infections are linked with negative cognitive outcomes for the child
Full brain dump here:
Risks
- Pregnant women may be at a higher risk for Covid 19 being classed as severe if they catch it. Particularly pregnancy has been assoicated with increased hospitisation, risk of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, but not death. Large study from US - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7316319/. Study authors suggest that prevention of COVID-19 should be emphasized for pregnant women and potential barriers to adherence to these measures need to be addressed. Second Swedish study showing that the risk of being admitted to ICU may be greater for pregnant women here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7273089/
- Higher chance of Cesarean section if infected (47% symptomatic, 46% asymptomatic, 31% non covid admissions p=0.044 i.e. 96% chance it's not random chance) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32633022/ July 2020. Second study also found higher instances of ceasrean birth in mothers with Covid 19 ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32555034/)
- Higher chance of post birth complications for the mother (postpartum complications) - typically fever, hypoxia, readmission. These occured in 12.9% of women with covid, vs 4.5% of women without covid p<0.001 i.e. better than 99.9% chance it's not due to random chance) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32633022/
- Post birth pathology of the placenta demonstrated increased frequency of vascular malperfusion (basically recognisable injury to the placenta which results in abonormalities in oxygenation and blood flow dynamics) which is indicative of thrombi (blood clots) in fetal vessels (presumably what is causing the impact to oxygenation and blood flow). Markedly higher - 48.3% covid 19, 11.3% in non-covid 19. Very good p value p<0.001 (better than 1 in a thousand that the result is not due to random chance, or better than 99.9%)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32633022/
- Placental blood clots (thrombi) are associated in literature with a number of negative outcomes - Severe perinatal(within a year of birth) liver disease (for the child) ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11815872/ - not a study, just three case studies), intra uterine growth restriction (basically fetal growth) ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15033316/ - quite large study), and cerebral palsy ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10414494/ - not a study, review of 84 autopsies).
- Second and third trimesters are seens as the most risky period for pregnant women ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32513659/ - large cohort study of all UK OB units between March and Mid April).
- Risk of tranmission to child seems relatively low during delivery - lots of studies say this - e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32534458/ They do point out that appropiate seperation measures would be required at birth if mother is Covid positive (i.e. baby removed from mother)
- Evidence for flu that women who are hospitalised during pregnancy with flu are more likely to deliver pre-term or low weigh infants. Obviously flu is not Covid, but many of the physical symptoms align (e.g. fever) ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21900872/)
- Maternal infections are linked to altered brain development. Linked conditions include development of autism spectrum disorders, differences in cognitive test scores, and bipolar disorder; these associations have been shown in both epidemiologic and retrospective studies. Elevations in inflammatory cytokines (substences that cells release in response to infection) have been linked to cerebral palsy, schizophrenias, and autism - covid 19 can cause a 'cytokine storm' which is the release of a large amount of cytokines (the substences linked to the bad outcomes!). Animal studies have also shown that prenatal inflammation can impact neurodevelopment. The impacts vary by infection agent, but for example flu is assoicated with decreased IQ at age 7, bipolar disorder, and infantile autism. (very detailed review with lots of references here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4795171/)
Unknowns
- Cognitive impact on fetus - first studies expected in autumn 2020, but typically cogntitive tests are done at 5 years or later! However evidence from other viral infections suggests there could be an impact.
@Ewan, could she get an antibody test to see if she has already had it?
might make decision easier
good advice here & imo (despite what the tory press are saying) the NEU have been pretty good so far
https://neu.org.uk/coronavirus-what-you-need-know-pregnancy-and-maternity
@Kimbers - thanks for that, we'd seen that but looks like it has been updated fairly recently. I thought the antibody tests were not very accurate? She's certainly not been ill since covid became prevalent.
Her school has been great so far, she's been working from home since this all kicked off / we found out she was pregnant. She's having an individual risk assessment next week, but my concern is that it is hard for someone who has not taught reception to understand how different reception is from other years - children of that age will cough / vomit / whatever in her face, and to do a good job you need to constantly be at their level, giving hugs, etc. A facemask and visor in reception would scare the crap out them!
Back from a week on holiday (in Norfolk).
Not a huge amount of social distancing and the county was rammed.
It must be so dependant on where you go - I got back from Hopton on Sea last weekend and there was about 5-10 people on the beach at any given time.
taken from the kids/schools/masks thread:
Rise in cases in France and Scotland this week, and what had changed significantly for a potential cause? They both had return to schools two weeks or so ago….
The gov (under advice from SAGE) said in June, a return to schools would increase the R rate by a factor of 0.5. Nothing has change since then scientifically. The current R rate for England is 0.9 – 1.1
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-r-number-in-the-uk
In a months time that infection curve will have a much higher incline…..
Posted 1 hour ago
so a 0.5 for going back to school, anyone know what the 'open the pubs' factor is/was?
(full disclosure, im too old for school and i like pubs)
Reply | Report
About time, should have been the case from the start.
I thought that the rise in cases in Scotland was mostly related to a couple of specific, non-school related, outbreaks. Correlation is not causation.
